Feelings are bound to come into it, even if they're messy and make us prone to error. Hence there's no stark dividing line, but more like general trends in self-identification based on what first comes to mind when we discuss attitudes toward divinity in nature.
I think Neopagans are more likely to place reverence or even worshipful attitudes toward nature front and center when trying to put a finger on what draws them to that tradition and that label. Rosicrucians sometimes also express reverence for nature, but that tends to be less central to the practice than natural and spiritual philosophy.

I find my own practice straddles the fence, and involves something more like a personal god-concept, as I alluded to in my post on The Heroine's Journey even though I don't believe in a personal god as an actual entity.
To engage in finely-parsed syntax as Spinoza was wont to do, you might say that I'm a Neopaganesque Rosicrucian rather than a Rosicrucianesque Neopagan. Or to put it in quantum terms, the dividing line becomes more difficult to pin down the harder you look at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment